Those pushing for
the exit of Mohammed Adamu as the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) got an
answer yesterday – President Muhammadu Buhari has a constitutional backing to
retain him as long as it suits him.
Besides,
the President is allowed by the constitution to extend the IGP’s tenure as he
wishes.
The President and
the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar
Malami took the position in the joint response they filed to a suit instituted
by a lawyer, Maxwell Opara.
The
lawyer has approached the court to challenge, among others, the President’s
decision to extend Adamu’s stay as the IGP for another three months from
February 1, 2021, when he ordinarily out to retire.
IG
Adamu, in a defense filed by his laywer, Alex Izinyon (SAN), had earlier told
the court that he has the right to remain in office till 2023 by virtue of his
appointment as guaranteed by the Police Act.
In
their counter-affidavit, the President and the AGF argued that the constitution
conferred the President with executive power to “appoint a serving police officer
as the IGP in consultation with Police Council.”
They
noted that neither the Nigeria Police Council (NPC) or the Police Service
Commission (PSC) has “disclosed any contrary fact that the second defendant
(IGP Adamu) is not a serving police officer.”
In
the joint response, the President and the AGF, who are listed as the first and
third defendants in the suit adopted a similar argument earlier made in
details in response to the case by the lawyer to the IGP, Alex Izinyon (SAN).
In
the written submission filed for them by a lawyer in the AGF’s office, Maimuna
Shiru, the President, and the AGF agreed to rely on the argument by the IGP’s
lawyer in answering the plaintiff’s question as to whether the President is
empowered to extend the tenure of the IGP.
They said: “My Lord, on the above issue, it is our position that we will be
relying on and aligning with the argument canvassed by the 2nd defendant’s (IGP’s)
counsel as their issue two in paragraphs 1.18 to 1.49 of their written address
and we shall be adopting same as ours and urge this honourable court to uphold
our argument and dismiss the plaintiff’s case as same is frivolous.”
They
further argued that they failed to discharge the legal burden of proof that
Adamu is not a serving police officer for the purposes of extension of his
tenure in office.
They
added: “The question if the 2nd defendant is still a serving police officer is
a question of fact. It is a fact that the Nigeria Police Act 2020 is a
subsidiary legislation passed by the National Assembly.
“It
is a fact that the appointment of an Inspector-General of Police is, by the
Constitution conferred on the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The
IGP’s lawyer had, in his argument, which the President and the AGF adopted,
argued that the tenure of the IGP is not governed by the general provisions
applicable to the rest of the police force.
He
noted that by virtue of the relevant laws, the office of the IGP is
“quasi-political” and “is conferred with a special status” and “distinct from
other officers of the Nigeria Police Force.”
Izinyon argued that
Section 18(8) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, as it relates to the provision
that “every police officer shall, on recruitment or appointment, serve in the
Nigeria Police Force for a period of 35 years or until he attains the age of 60
years, whichever is earlier,” is inapplicable to the office of the IGP.
He
contended that the IGP, upon appointment, “is only accountable to the President
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Nigeria Police Council, and this
fact makes his office a quasi-political office with a tenure of four (4) years,
pursuant to Section 7(6) of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020.”
The
lawyer added that by the combined effect of Sections 215 and 216 of the
Nigerian Constitution and Section 7 of the Nigeria Police Act, 2020, his client
“can validly function as the Inspector General of Police after midnight of
February 1, 2021, in so far as he was a serving member of the Nigeria Police
Force during the period of his appointment.”
He
said the four years tenure provided for the IGP in Section 7(6) of Nigeria
Police Act, 2020, as it applies to his client, would end either in 2023 or
2024.
“Therefore,
if the second defendant’s tenure in office is calculated from January 15, 2019
when he was appointed into the office of the IGP, his tenure lapses in 2023.
“However,
if his tenure in office is calculated from 2020 when the Nigeria Police Act,
2020 came into force his tenure in office ends in 2024,” Izinyon said.
At
the mention of the case yesterday, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Ezekiel Ugochukwu
informed the court that the case was fixed for hearing.
Justice
Ahmed Mohammed, however, said the case could not proceed to hearing because NPC
was not yet properly served.
Justice
Mohammed faulted the plaintiff’s lawyer’s argument that the NPC was served through
the President’s office, the president being the head of the NPC.
The
judge said such service on the NPC through the President’s office could not be
considered a proper service.
He
also noted that the plaintiff has indicated its intention to file a further
reply to the joint response by the President and AGF.
Justice
Mohammed adjourned till March 30 for hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment